- Sep 9, 2014
- 4,266
- 11,178
My goodness we don't play Man City any time soon do we?
My goodness we don't play Man City any time soon do we?
Saturday 16th December = Man City (Away) 5 30pm
Saturday 14th April = Man City (Home) 3pm
EDIT That second game will probably be rearranged for tv
The average points of a 38-game PL title winner is 85, with a range of 75-95. Therefore 84 points is normally around a 50/50 chance. That being said it's less than 50% right now simply because of how well City have done. Let's say they regress to being 'only' as good as a normal title winner for the rest of this season - you'd still expect them to end up on 90 points due to their early season form. So we either need them to drop below a normal title-winning standard, or for us to do massively (likely impossibly)* well.We are avg' 2.22PPG that puts on course for 84 at the moment. But as everyone is playing in Europe this season then we may need a smaller points total to win the league this year. High70, low 80. Prob a mid 80
The average points of a 38-game PL title winner is 85, with a range of 75-95. Therefore 84 points is normally around a 50/50 chance. That being said it's less than 50% right now simply because of how well City have done. Let's say they regress to being 'only' as good as a normal title winner for the rest of this season - you'd still expect them to end up on 90 points due to their early season form. So we either need them to drop below a normal title-winning standard, or for us to do massively (likely impossibly)* well.
*We'd need to play like a team that'd reach 92 points over 38 games (on the high end for a champion) for the rest of this season to beat Man City if they reached that standard.
One could ask though, what would happen to Spurs if we actually were in the same position? If we were not number two or three chasing, but number ONE, consistently over a few weeks/months. If media could create a narrative about financial underdogs with a home grown English wonder kid spearheading the attack on the financial doping of the sport, overtaking Arab and Russian owners. Then what? We haven't actually been in that singular prime position, and I for one would say that, if that happens, you'll see. There is no Spurs specific conspiracy.
Yep, there is an elite bias, I won't deny that. But there is no secret order with sole intent about suppressing Spurs.You're right about there not being a Spurs specific conspiracy, but there is definitely a pro Man Utd, Man City, Chelsea, Liverpool and, still to some extent, Arsenal conspiracy, the problem we have as a club is that we're upsetting that little elite set up and it shows in the media's attitude towards us.
Yep, there is an elite bias, I won't deny that. But there is no secret order with sole intent about suppressing Spurs.
Is there really an elite bias in the media?
I really can't see it myself (refer to post above ("all fans think their club is discriminated against")) - I'd love to hear more arguments on the subject.
Well, only because it yields more money. Whatever the media can focus on that yields the most money, that's where they go. And since the largest fanbases are concentrated on the largest clubs, it makes the most sense to focus on them because they will reach the largest audience, and generate the largest amount of money. It's not because those club are more loved by the media, but simply because it is a recipe that yields financial results. Just look at TV broadcasted matches within the UK. It is not evenly distributed among all clubs. Large clubs are shown more times because they appeal to the largest audience. Also, a fan of club not-so-important is more likely to pay attention to news about very-important-club, than to news about another small-club. So through economics, there is a top club bias.Is there really an elite bias in the media?
I really can't see it myself (refer to post above ("all fans think their club is discriminated against")) - I'd love to hear more arguments on the subject.
Well, only because it yields more money. Whatever the media can focus on that yields the most money, that's where they go. And since the largest fanbases are concentrated on the largest clubs, it makes the most sense to focus on them because they will reach the largest audience, and generate the largest amount of money. It's not because those club are more loved by the media, but simply because it is a recipe that yields financial results. Just look at TV broadcasted matches within the UK. It is not evenly distributed among all clubs. Large clubs are shown more times because they appeal to the largest audience. Also, a fan of club not-so-important is more likely to pay attention to news about very-important-club, than to news about another small-club. So through economics, there is a top club bias.
Interesting theory, I like it.
However does it necessarily follow that the article about the "top club" has to be positive? Surely any article about a top club will attract the same number of clicks? So therefore dues there have to be a bias, or just more articles about the top clubs?
I would assume there is a hierarchy over money generating football news.Interesting theory, I like it.
However does it necessarily follow that the article about the "top club" has to be positive? Surely any article about a top club will attract the same number of clicks? So therefore dues there have to be a bias, or just more articles about the top clubs?
A cane?we play city on my 30th birthday.
just saying as an FYI.....in case you want to buy me something.
The average points of a 38-game PL title winner is 85, with a range of 75-95. Therefore 84 points is normally around a 50/50 chance. That being said it's less than 50% right now simply because of how well City have done. Let's say they regress to being 'only' as good as a normal title winner for the rest of this season - you'd still expect them to end up on 90 points due to their early season form. So we either need them to drop below a normal title-winning standard, or for us to do massively (likely impossibly)* well.
*We'd need to play like a team that'd reach 92 points over 38 games (on the high end for a champion) for the rest of this season to beat Man City if they reached that standard.
I will if we beat Citywe play city on my 30th birthday.
just saying as an FYI.....in case you want to buy me something.
I would assume there is a hierarchy over money generating football news.
On the top, you'll probably find football sensations. For instance "Newly promoted club with a name that sounds like a square in London on path to league title". Big, sensational news. Gotta love it. Generates loads of money. Happens rarely.
Level two in the hierarchy is probably really bad stuff about somebody remotely famous. For instance long-time football personality connected to prime PL clubs accused of sexual assault. Generates a fair bit of money if you can keep some secrecy around it. Happens semi rarely
Level three is probably anything you can write about the BIG clubs. If the headline has a big club in it, it will sell. Generates a shit load of money, because it happens every day.
Level four is probably invented or perceived news about big teams. You know, will Wenger last THIS season? Will Kane leave NEXT summer. That sort of crap. Happens as a build up to every round. Creates some way to use big individuals to increase revenue. Mentioning Kane's perceived transfer is not really about talking down Spurs, it's about (ab)using flavour of the month players to increase sales. It's great, because you can say the same thing every single week, and sell news that aren't even news.
Level four is probably manager sackings. The more prestigious the manager is, the better for media sales.
Etc. etc. etc. So it's not really black and white, but it follows an economic mechanism to create money, not to promote a bias only for the sake of it.